Jay A

Lives in United States NY, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

If anyone here should possibly need something like this (I wish I knew why) don't worry. 1tb version of them will probably be available for about 60 bucks in a couple of years.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:01 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

By the way, I think you are assuming that authorities everywhere act and react the way they do in the free world...
"If the photog doesn't have the "password" to decrypt their photos, then there's no reason to torture them, is there?"
Yeah? Tell that to an isis operative who is demanding to see your photos.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

No, I understand you perfectly. What I am implying is that if they suspect you, they may want to hold you and/or your memory cards until you ARE able to show them what's on the cards.
Imagine photographing in an area where a major political event such as an assassination takes place. You are seen with a camera by authorities. You may or may not even have been photographing what happened. The authorities approach you and demand to see the photos. You're going to tell them you can't show them your photos? You're saying the photographer has no choice. I'd AT LEAST like to have the choice. Wouldn't you?

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
In reply to:

Jay A: This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

By "turn off encryption" I meant that he may demand to see the photos before letting you go with the cameras and memory cards.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:28 UTC

This may be a naïve question, but if some border agent in some third world country has stopped you and is wanting to see your photos due to some suspicions he may have, isn't he going to demand that you turn off the encryption so that he may gain access to those photos? If you refuse, aren't you putting yourself in as much dangers as if you might by letting him view the photos, maybe even more? Also, if you have photographed someone or something that might be illegal in that particular country, haven't you yourself put yourself in such danger? Seems to me that what is being asked here is like asking for someone to come up with some kind of protective case that would hide illegal drugs being smuggled out of a country.
I'd think that by far most camera thefts are done by those interested in reselling your $5000 camera on a street corner for 50 bucks. I doubt someone doing that would give a crap about what's on your memory cards.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:06 UTC as 20th comment | 7 replies
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

Very predictable. Listen, Nikon, as long as you keep ignoring the plea to produce a viable prosumer and/or professional mirrorless camera, your numbers will continue to decline.
And for that matter....KeyMission? Really? Have you seen the problems that GoPro has had in the past year?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 00:43 UTC as 171st comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (765 comments in total)

Kodak Brownie Super 27 from 1961

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:39 UTC as 545th comment | 1 reply

I think this is actually a funny product. I would assume that the idea behind it is to be discreet. However it looks like it would stand out like a sore thumb, and it makes a shutter sound? Why?
I also wonder...does it take a picture every time you blink?
Funny

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 21:30 UTC as 34th comment

Obviously this product is not meant for me, but somehow the idea of sending almost $30,000 worth of gear up in the air and possibly out of sight just does not sit very well with me!

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 14:55 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (287 comments in total)

Wish I had one of those things when I owned my D800

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 19:53 UTC as 112th comment

The real reason this is happening is because Steve Jobs always new that Apple customers didn't want to be able to take pictures at concerts! Just like Apple customers don't want memory card slots and the ability to change the batteries themselves!! Or even keyboards included when they buy $4000 Mac Pros

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 15:13 UTC as 76th comment | 1 reply

So, in other words, once this technology is implemented, if I am at a concert, my iphone's camera may be disabled and I can't even take a picture of my wife? Ya know, hardly a day goes by where I don't read about something else that Apple is working on to further infringe on my rights.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 14:32 UTC as 84th comment
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)

Welcome to the modern world. This is nothing new. About 25 years ago, I bought a software package which touted something or other on the box. When I got home and opened it up, I found out that the feature mentioned on the box would be available with a future upgrade. Fact is we live in a world of profit profit profit and damn the small stuff. Frankly, very little works the way it's supposed to anymore and hardly anyone is ever accountable.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 15:09 UTC as 61st comment | 4 replies
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)

In my opinion, 4k is the new 3D. Something completely unnecessary, being pushed on the consumer in an effort to create a buying frenzy for a new, better, spiffier, whiter than white product that no one wants nor needs.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 16:46 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)

Man! I hope it's a film camera :)

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 16:03 UTC as 92nd comment | 4 replies
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)

I find it strange that for months people have been bitching over the compressed RAW files, wanting Sony to do something about it and now that they are people are bitching that they are!

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 21:16 UTC as 67th comment | 3 replies
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)

This is honestly the kind've thing that makes me so suspicious of this entire digital photo world that we live in now. At the drop of a hat some CEO can determine that everything is obsolete. I have negatives dating back over 40 years that I can still make prints from. But, will my RAW files be able to be opened in ANYTHING 40 years from now?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 22:55 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: Isn't CS6 still available in many retail outlets for purchase? I think that if it is, it kind've stinks that Adobe is doing this. While I can understand the push for the cloud, they really should wait till CS6 products have been off the retail shelves for a decent amount of time before allowing customers to spend a few hundred dollars on a product only to tell them that the camera they may buy in 6 months won't be supported. It's almost like buying a car and a week later telling the customer "oh by the way, there won't be any batteries made for that car anymore."

Yes but Photoshop relies on ACR to open RAW files.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 22:41 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)

Isn't CS6 still available in many retail outlets for purchase? I think that if it is, it kind've stinks that Adobe is doing this. While I can understand the push for the cloud, they really should wait till CS6 products have been off the retail shelves for a decent amount of time before allowing customers to spend a few hundred dollars on a product only to tell them that the camera they may buy in 6 months won't be supported. It's almost like buying a car and a week later telling the customer "oh by the way, there won't be any batteries made for that car anymore."

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 22:30 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies

Apple is too busy building watches and looking into purchasing auto companies to bother with its old customer base.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 15:58 UTC as 230th comment
Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »